hunt@spar.UUCP.UUCP (06/03/87)
In V5 #135, Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET> makes a point about computer grading of student essays. He proposes that using computers to grade essays on a first pass, with "some procedure for complaints to be made to a human being with an appropriate hearing" and that the com- puter "must in some way indicate how the grade was deter- mined". I think that he has missed the point of earlier discussions expressing concern over the educational consequences of hav- ing students orient their efforts towards pleasing a machine rather than a human grader. I believe that the real lesson that students would learn in this situation, is that it is much simpler to write their essays in a style that would satisfy the mechanical grader than to pursue rectification of their grades by requesting a hearing with a human. In fact, most students would probably soon discover how to beat the machine at its own game, writing in a style which would be unacceptable to a human grader, but which a machine with rules of a limited scope might grade highly. The opposite side of the coin, however, as most students are aware, is that human graders all have their own preferences and foibles. Students do learn to avoid certain techniques and foster others just because their human graders seem to dislike the former and like that latter, even if these feel- ings are not representative of all graders. The advantage of human involvement is that the scope of the human includes an understanding of this very problem, thereby providing a curb on the possibility of either the teacher or the student exploiting the situation too far. Of course, the problem is a characteristic of our society, as one's work is always judged by people with prejudices and biases. I believe that before we introduce additional com- puterised agents of judgement, we should have a good under- standing of all the problems they might pose. This is not to say that mechanical style checkers do not have their place. Perhaps all students should have the option of using such a tool before submitting their work to the human grader, but they should be encouraged to under- stand its limitations as well as its strengths, and avoid falling into the trap of assuming that if the machine liked their essay, that the intended readership would also like it. Perhaps it is a little premature to be considering the legality of using computerised grading systems. I am sure that there are many legal options available to teachers and graders which we would not expect them to utilise if they were not effective teaching and learning tools. I think that the desirability of using such an option should be established before time is wasted debating whether it is legal. Neil/. These are my own opinions and not those of my employer etc.